[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

David Blaikie dblaikie at gmail.com
Sun Jan 13 11:18:00 PST 2013

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Pawel Wodnicki <root at 32bitmicro.com> wrote:
> Brooks,
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski
>>>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer
>>>>>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen)
>>>>>> <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Pawel,
>>>>>>> PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX
>>>>>>> subdirectory still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do
>>>>>>> you think update the release tarball is a good idea? Also
>>>>>>> could you remove it from the trunk?
>>>>>> Please do not, under no circumstances, change the 3.2
>>>>>> release tarballs at this point. They are mirrored around
>>>>>> the world now with cryptographic hashes and signatures.
>>>>>> Changing them will break things for many people, especially
>>>>>> for an extremely minor thing like an empty directory.
>>>>>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted
>>>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might
>>>>>> only make matters worse.
>>>>>> The tarballs were changed?
>>>>> r172208
>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user
>>>>  complained about distfile changes.  IMO, this revision should
>>>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums
>>>> as well.
>>>> If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1
>>>> tarball rather than screwing all the downstream consumers who's
>>>>  infrastructure exists to detect trojan'd tarballs.
>>> Tarball is signed, it is not trjoan. Your infrastructure should
>>> be able to deal with it?
>> The FreeBSD ports collection maintains a set of sha256 hashes for
>> each distfile.  The system can deal with them changing, but it's
>> an inconvenience to port maintainers and users.  Even if we did
>> have infrastructure to verify the signatures we'd still have to
>> check the contents and would not just trust the signature since
>> there's always a risk of keys being compromised.
>> -- Brooks
>  At first your reaction has puzzled me, but despite a few fire
> breathing dragons getting loose and after carefully re-reading
> these posts over the weekend I think I understand the underlying
> issue.
>  Simply put we both take this release seriously.
>  The problem is the release process is not entirely
> defined. Which is reflected in question from David Blaikie
> (the other post I am quoting here).
>> Which release process document are you referring to that indicates
>> that?
>  Simple answer is the one on the llvm.org website.

I'm looking for something a bit more specific. Something that explains
(even ambiguously) the post-release process that might
discuss/imply/support the situation we've ended up in (with a
post-release change to the original tarballs well after the release
announcement, etc).

So far as I can tell the release documentation ends at the point where
the release is finalized/announced/etc.

> But the real answer is, it all depends on how you read it.
> Apparently, we read it differently which is not that
> surprising as even our well defined compilers have
> a bit of a problem with undefined behavior.
> So what can we expect from a release process document?
> My hope is that we have reached a sort of sequence
> point and the ambiguity of the release process
> can be resolved despite all the side effects.

While that does need to be addressed (& I did bring it up), there's
also the immediate issue at hand to deal with as well.

> David also stated this:
>> Generally, so far as I know, this kind of post-release change is
>> unprecedented.
>  I agree with this conclusion but even more unprecedented
> is to a expect timely and problem free release with zero and
> I'll repeat again zero involvement from the wider community that
> depends on the clang+llvm!
>  This is how the 3.2 release has happened, just compare
> the list of 3.2 to 3.1 binaries and BTW not a single
> 3.2 binary has been produced with the help of a respective
> project, distribution or who ever.
>  I hear the cries of your wounded infrastructures
> and I understand that in the days of forged root certificates
> my signature on the tarballs may not guarantee much of a
> security.
>  But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release?

Presumably: because the process has worked in the past. There would be
no reason to dictate how the release works when experience (&
documentation) seems to support the desired model.

>  We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since
> the 3.2 release got rolling.

Not exactly - it wasn't (& isn't) an unreasonable expectation that
releases are static. That's sort of the definition of a release,

> Everybody knew about the changes for the 3.2 release,

What changes are you referring to? I don't know of any changes to the
/release process/ in 3.2, other than the change in RM (you rather than
Bill Wendling). Obviously with any such change there may be
miscommunications/misunderstandings, and that seems like all this is -
and couldn't really have been anticipated by 3rd party consumers of

> simple e-mail to the new
> LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or
> other release related issues not to mention a bit
> of a courtesy.
>  I am doing this as service to the LLVM community
> but frankly I'd rather be chasing my dragons of
> probability now.

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list